tv BBC News Special BBC News January 21, 2018 8:30pm-9:01pm GMT
cassocks are optional, though, as you can see, most of the priests kept them on. we have seen big changes taking place in the atmosphere today, with much much milder air trying to push in from the atlantic as it bumped into cold air it brought some of us some disruptive snow and heavy rain, still cold enough for the risk for some ice during the first part of tonight, but then, that milder air sweeps tonight, but then, that milder air swee ps a cross tonight, but then, that milder air sweeps across the country so we will start monday between three and nine degree, rain in the far south—west. that will scrape along the south coast for a while before scooting off into the near continent, there will be showers in scotland, particularly, these mainly falling as rain at this stage, a breezy day where ever you are, windy in the north but for many places it will be fine, dry, some spells of sunshine
and a much betterfeel to fine, dry, some spells of sunshine and a much better feel to the weather, at least much less chilly at six to 11 degrees. ahead it will turn milder still on tuesday, we will see outbreaks of rain and strong winds at times. is this is bbc news, our latest headlines . 1a foreigners are among 18 people killed in the attack on a kabul hotel — they're thought to have been deliberately targeted. ukip‘s ruling committee unanimously backs a vote of no confidence in leader henry bolton. henry was disappointed, but he understands that the party has a process to go through. henry was offered the opportunity to resign, but he has made clear he feels he is the right man to lead the party forward. a man is arrested in connection with the death of eight—year—old mylee billingham — stabbed to death in the west midlands. now in a bbc news special, the french president emmanuel macron talks to andrew marr about france's relationship with the uk, and about brexit and the future of the eu. i'm here at government house
at the royal military academy, sandhurst, outside london, where the french president emmanuel macron has just been holding talks with the british prime minister theresa may about defence and immigration. of course, in the context of brexit, after those talks were over, i sat down with president macron to discuss those issues, but also france's role in the wider world, with china, and of course with president trump. mr president, we're sitting here at sandhurst at the heart of british military culture, and you've just come to a new military agreement. can i start by asking you what you've agreed with theresa may? we agreed a series of cooperations. cooperation in terms of capacities, on future projects, on new capacities for new weapons in the future, which represent very huge investments, but it is very important
because we have a very strong relationship in terms of defence. that's a bilateral relationship, nothing to do with brexit. is that because the russians are tooling up with new weapons all the time, and there is a threat from the east, or what? notjust a threat from the east — we have a series of security issues. obviously we have security issues coming from the east, but we have to deal with the middle east, in africa with the war against terrorism, and that is why we decided this cooperation in terms of capacities and a series of new weapons, because that is very important from a strategic and personal point of view. we decided on our side to commit ourselves in 2019 for cooperation in estonia, in the framework of nato, so that's a series of very concrete cooperations in the short run, because we have the same vision of security and collective threats. let let me ask, if i may,
about the wider picture. do you think it's possible, in theresa may's words, for britain to have a deep and special relationship with the eu after brexit? i do hope so. i do hope, because i think it will be good for the eu and for the uk. she said a deep relationship, however. if the uk, and i imagine yourview is if the uk is not going to be a member of the customs union or the single market, or accept the four freedoms, it can't be that deep? look, it will be by definition less deep than today, because the deepest possible relationship is being a member of the european union, so i think you have to be lucid and you have to be fair with people. as you decided to leave, you cannot be part of the single market, but in terms of the nature of the negotiation,
you can have some deeper relations than some others. for instance, we have a deeper relation with norway than the one we have with canada, so it depends on the outcome of the negotiation, but for sure — except if you change your mind — but you will not be part of the single market, as you will not be part of the european union. and in concrete terms let's talk about what that might mean. so for instance there are a lot of people in this country who say, well, not much of the british economy is actually directly trading with the eu. that bit of the british economy could diverge, but bits of the british economy that are trading with the eu will converge. in other words, we can have a sophisticated bespoke deal specially for britain. now, you said in the past you can have canada, or you can have norway, but you can't have your own special deal. is that really fair, given how long britain has been part of the year? no, is not a question of being fairorunfair. i take that as a reference, but for sure you will have your own
solution, and my willingness... so there will be a bespoke special solution for britain? sure, but i take these two references, because this special way should be consistent with the preservation of the single market and our collective interests. and you should understand that you cannot by definition have the full access to the single market if you don't tick the box, and to get full access to the single market you need to contribute to the budget, and you have to accept... the freedoms. the freedoms, and the four pillars. and you have to accept the jurisdiction. as soon as you decide not to join these preconditions, it's not a full access. so it's something perhaps between this full access and a trade agreement. but what is important is not to make people think or believe that it's possible to have... your cake and eat it? exactly. so when i talk to david davis, our main brexit negotiator,
and i say, what does britain really want out of this, david? and he says, we want canada plus plus plus, and by "plus plus plus" he means a deal on services, because so much of the uk economy is based on services in general and on the city in particular. from what you've said today, i guess that you don't believe we can have any special deal involving the city? i mean, you don'tjust speak about services but you speak about financial services. cooking a deal is the job of michel barnier. we have a very dedicated organisation. i don't want to start a negotiation country by country. it would be ridiculous. and the best way to dismantle the whole eu. i think what we have to do, and what we will do, is firs to take the decision in march regarding the mandate we want to give to michel barnier for the negotiations. after that, he will have to negotiate, with your negotiator. and they will decide, and it depends on the proposals made by the uk, but, for sure, full access for financial
services to the single market is not feasible, given the functioning of the single market. so by definition it's not a full access. so in concrete terms some form of passporting deal is off the table in these negotiations, as far as you're concerned? i'm not the one to negotiate, and i don't want to close doors, but it depends on what you're ready to put on the table, in terms of preconditions. if you respect the precondition to get access to the single market, it's feasible. but there is no cherry picking with the single market. i mean, if i had to wrap up the full philosophy, no cherry picking of the single market, because it's not feasible. because otherwise that's the dismantling of the single market, and for me it's one of the pillars of the european union, and something you loved in the past. and you say that you are not negotiating, and that's absolutely right, but when you went to china, for instance, you were very
much saying that one of the consequences of brexit, you thought, was to reaffirm paris's centrality in the financial system and france has made a very very strong pitch to british financial institutions to come over to paris. how's it going? look, in china i didn't speak about brexit, and i didn't — i would say — push any message due to brexit. ifully disagree... i think for china, as i look at europe, we have to be very much coordinated. and we are linked and we are closely linked on nuclear and a series of topics which are very important for both of us vis—a—vis china. secondly, in terms of european dialogue on financial services, but for sure — for sure, we want to attract the maximum activity. why? because this decision has an impact for a lot of players. so a lot of players will decide to be part of the eu and the eurozone, and have to choose
between different countries so there is a competition between different countries. of course there is. the case, i suppose... and you had the decision regarding the regulator, so as you leave you lost this regulator. i suppose the case for the city is that it has built up a very big part of the whole global financial system, and to unplug the city from the rest of the european financial structure is a big risk and a danger? look, i think — first of all it is absolutely not my willingness and i think not reasonable perspective. secondly, it is something to taken into consideration by your negotiator, and your own proposals.
but my willingness is not precisely to unplug, as you say, the british city. i think it doesn't make sense. because it's part of the whole financing of our european union. but, for sure, if there is no change in terms of full access to the financial single market, it doesn't make sense for the others. so i want to preserve what we created post—world war, and what we created is this sophisticated organisation called the european union, which is for the very first time not a hegemony of one over the others, but a very concrete democratic, economic construction. why do you think the british voted to leave this sophisticated structure? look, i'm not the one to judge or to comment on the decision of your people, but my interpretation is that a lot of losers of this new globalisation and this new system suddenly decided that it was no more for them. you always take a risk when you have such a referendum — just yes or no in a very complicated context. if france had had a referendum it might have had the same result? yeah, probably. in a similar context, but our context was very different, so i don't want to make any...
i mean, to take any bets, but i would have definitely fought very hard to win. but i think it's a mistake when you just ask yes or no, when you don't ask people how to improve the situation, and to explain how to improve it. that's why i do believe in these conventions we will organise to better connect to people. as for the brexit vote, my understanding is that the middle classes, and the working classes, and especially the oldest in your country, they decided that the recent decades were not in their favour, and that the adjustments made by both the eu and globalisation — because for me it was a mix of both — they decided it was not in their favour. which means what? firstly, it is not sustainable to have an unbalanced organisation. surely it was about europe as well,
and the structure of europe. secondly, i think one of the reasons was precisely an organisation of our european union probably which goes too far in terms of freedom without cohesion, towards the free market without any rules and any conversions, and i have to say that your government had some responsibilities in it. too neoliberal, perhaps? ten years ago, they were purely free market without any regulation. because all of your people saying, "the hungarian workers or the polish workers are much more favoured than i am," it was exactly the debate we had in france 10—15 years ago against some directives that a lot of your government pushed at the time saying, guys, you are not free market.
i do believe in the free market, i do believe in a market economy, but we need regulation and convergence, which means that what we lost in recent years in europe, that's the convergence and solidarity message. it is no longer sustainable to have some countries taking cohesion funds, money from the european union, in order to converge, and then using this money to diverge. to reduce their labour standards, or to reduce their corporate taxes. so that is why... sorry to interrupt, but your vision seems to me to be deepening europe, as a response to this. you want a single financial minister, more european taxes, more done at the centre. again, is that not a terrible risk? how many european people look at this and say, "it is too far away already — i don't feel engaged in this?"
no, because it is notjust my view. firstly i think we need to have a much more protective europe. from the very beginning i am totally dedicated to making our europe more protective to our people. what i do believe is that, first, europe should not mean just adapting yourself when you are part of the working class or the middle—class, but the best answer is that we have collective risks and threats. europe is something which will protect you, on digital, the environment, migration, collective security, and a fair organisation. but i would say, in the mid to long run, my view of europe is the following. i do believe we have a european union, and we will be, unfortunately, 27. inevitably, definitely? i mean, it depends on you. i do respect this vote. i do regret this vote, and i would love to welcome you again. ican see...
your vision, of a different europe... my vision, in the very short run, be much more concrete, and less bureaucratic, to protect people and address their issues and our collective future, concrete terms. but we have to prepare for a new organisation which should be, or could be the following. there will be 27 of us at eu level, and for me the mid to long run perspective, by definition, is to gather some countries, within or in some cooperation with this eu, let's say, but it will enlarge precisely to be... so a second europe outside? turkey or russia. i don't know whether through corporation or through joining, but this eu should have a pillar of the single market, common values and rights, to be defended. that is the first circle. and a series of inner circles
on different policies. so a multispeed europe. by definition, and it is already the case with the schengen agreement. but on defence, on migration. for me the core of europe, the very inner circle, is an open avant—garde, where we decide to have a much stronger integration, and to work very closely together in strategic and economic terms — that is my view. but it is notjus to strengthent... let me move on, if i may. i want to ask you about france. more sovereignty, more unity, more democracy — that's the recipe for success in europe. if you lose your sovereignty and you don't protect people, they don't believe in you. if you are not based on a democratic approach they will not follow you. if you are not following this unity with consistency and convergence, they will leave. you said france is back. what did you mean? i mean that we are delivering reforms which seemed impossible for decades. that's it. we fixed a series of internal difficulties,
and we increased our capacity to produce and be competitive. this is for me the pillar, because when you are not credible at home there is no chance to be credible outside. you speak about values which presumably must involve freedom of the press and human rights and so forth. did you raise those with the chinese president when you were speaking to him? i raised this with all the leaders i met, and that's why... what did he say to you? i do thisjob in france in order to relaunch europe, for you to understand the full picture. thejob we do in france is good for france. i am sure in the coming years we will improve our figures in terms of employment, reduce our deficit and so on. that's it. it allows me to be more credible at european level and to convince — especially germany — to work together to relaunch this new europe. thirdly, it allows us to be more credible at international scale,
on different subjects, different topics, taking the leadership against climate change, on lebanon on and several issues. on human rights, i always raise it. on climate change, just since you mention it. i just wanted to... very quickly. on human rights, so taking the spot, i raised human rights directly with all the leaders. in china it is absolutely counter—productive to raise it in a press conference, because, i mean, the political system, the regime, the presidency, it is not in a situation or in an environment... it's not going to help, you think? i believe it is totally current productive, so what i did was have a direct discussion. we have a track to discuss this issue. we decided on organisation and i provided, i would say, visibility and the ability for him to be sure that this
is not diplomacy in front of the camera, so that's it. it is different when i speak with president erdogan, because we had hours of discussion on human rights in specific situations, but i issued a very clear statement. let me ask you, if i may, about yet another leader. i wonder what you thought when you got up in the morning and you read what president trump — i can't say the word — had said about certain african countries, s—hole countries. he denies it but a lot of people say he used that word, and among the african countries outraged and very offended by that were many francophone countries, many french—speaking countries in africa. i wonder, did you share their outrage? for sure. for sure — it is not a word you can use. and if we want precisely to build peace and development in this country, and a respectful relationship... you can't use those kind of words. but, by definition, and i think a lot of our issues, both in the middle east and africa, it is due to a lot of frustrations, due to a lot of past humiliations, and we have to understand that.
and i do believe that we need... we have to respect all the countries. that is what we owe them, and that is much more efficient. so i have a very direct relationship with president trump — we have a very good relationship. you sat down for dinner with him at the top of the eiffel tower. i wondered what you make of him as person, having come across him closely? look, i think — he's not a classical politician. first of all, he was elected by the american people — he is the president of the united states, and that is a great country. so i want to work with him, and i think we have built a very strong relationship. we disagree on several topics. i call him very regularly. i am always extremely direct and frank. sometimes i manage to convince him, and sometimes i fail. do you wake up in the morning
thinking, what has he tweeted this night? no, because i think we shouldn't overplay the situation, and these tweets. sorry, i am asking you... because that is the sort of mix of personal and political reaction, and i think it is not feasible when you are president of a republic like the us republic, but like the french one. the reason i am asking, with a slight smile on my face but it is very serious, when you have something like the north korean situation, and trump says my nuclear button is bigger than yours, and a lot of people in the world think this is just slightly unhinged and very dangerous. yes, but what is the best answer to that? just to say we have to work very closely and seriously, to force north korea to come back to the negotiating table. we have to follow the un sanctions and implement them, and the critical country for delivery on this is china, and that is what we discussed there with president xi. it is just to calm down, everybody. do you think there is any chance at all of persuading the americans
to come back to the table on the paris climate change agreement? firstly i don't think there is any option to come back to the negotiating table with the paris agreement. i've always been very clear — it's negotiated and signed. it isjust deciding to sign what is done. to sign it, then — do you think they can? we negotiated. more than 180 countries signed and are being ratified. come on, we will not renegotiate for one person. so i believe it is a big mistake. i told him, but there is no new negotiation. you join, or you don'tjoin. china decided to remain in the loop, and we will deliver. i think we have to accelerate, but what i see is that the private sector, and states in the us, they are following this line, trying to comply with this agreement, so we will do it. i think it is a mistake but there will be no new negotiation,
but i hope an option to join the treaty as negotiated. very final question. you said you would be a jupiter—like president. what did you mean? i think i never used the expression like that when i was asked, but you know how it goes — people just capture one word and take it without the context. i think i wasjust making a comment with the full context, but my point was just to say when you present you have to preside — it is different from governing. you have to avoid permanent comments, to avoid the sort of day—to—day presence without strong decisions. you need to have a bit of elan, a bit of ‘gloire‘... i would not say that exactly...
you need efficiency, authority, humanity. that is why the third pillar is not compatible with jupiter or anything like that. but what is important to me and the message i wanted to say, our credibility is to explain what we want to do, to deliver, to change the country and prepare the country for the new century. that is what we are doing in france because that is a precondition to success in europe. and our role is to help to build peace everywhere in this world. that's it. that's my job. present macron, thank you very much indeed. thank you very much. good evening it has been a day of
big changes in the atmosphere, and change is not always easy, we have swapped out this very cold air, for some much, much milder airfrom the south—west, a sharp contrast between the two air masses and that has brought some problems with snow in some place, significant snow at that, and then in other places with the mild air pushing in, some heavy rain which has caused issues with flooding in the south—west and parts of wales. during tonight, that milderair is of wales. during tonight, that milder air is going to continue to sweep across the country, not before we see the risk of icy stretches in north east england but by the time we get to tomorrow morning we will be waking up to temperatures between three and nine degrees, some showers into scotland but notice that this stage most of the showers falling at rain, because of the milder air, temperatures of four degrees in inverness, higher than they have risen all day today. northern ireland, mostly dry if cloudy start, and that is the sort of weather we
have in much of england and wales, some sunny have in much of england and wales, some sunny spells here and there. particularly for hills an coasts in the west. one area of heavy rain continuing to affect the south coast, but that won't last long, that should scoot off to the south quickly, and monday, a decent day, fairly breezy, in fact windy in the far north, where there will continue to be nor more showers, some spells of sunshine elsewhere and temperatures of six to 11 degree, very very different to how it felt for many during today, as we move into tuesday, low pressure is in charge of the scene, up to the north—west, south—westerly winds which will be pumping very mild air across all areas by this stage, so tuesday probably on balance the m ilest tuesday probably on balance the milest day of the week for many, with that we will see some outbreaks of rain, most especially up to the north—west, northern ireland, scotland, northern england parts of wales, some patchy rain, best of the brightness in shetland tore the east of high ground and look at these
temperatures, nine in aberdeen but 12,13, temperatures, nine in aberdeen but 12, 13, there, in cardiff and london. a bit a change on wednesday, this band of heavy rain, winds, could be gales. mild in the south—east, something a bit chillier coming into the north—west, but nothing like as cold as it has been, there will be a slightly cooler feel to the weather on thursday, with frequent heavy showers. this is bbc world news today. i'm geeta guru—murthy. our top stories. a new escalation of the war in syria as turkey says its ground forces have crossed the border to target kurdish fighters there. the death toll in the attack on a luxury hotel in kabul increases to 18, after residents had to flee during a 12—hour siege. germany's social democrats vote to open talks with angela merkel‘s conservatives to form another grand coalition. a second day of women's marches around the world, including here in